In June 1822 at Tubuai, a tiny 40 ton brig captured a 300 ton brig of war armed with twenty cannons. The captured brig was formerly part of Lord Cochrane’s squadron of patriots fighting the Spanish for the independence of Chile and Peru (see illustration). The losing captain, Henry Good, was long experienced in war before he turned to piracy. The victorious captain, Samuel Henry, was only 22 years old, totally inexperienced in war, and the son of Rev. William Henry, an Irish lms missionary at..

Richards, Rhys

OpenEdition

 Journal de la Société des Océanistes 
129 | juillet-décembre 2009
Varia
The Pirates At Tahiti in 1822: Two Unpublished
Letters by Samuel Henry
Rhys Richards
Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/jso/5967
ISSN: 1760-7256
Publisher
Société des océanistes
Printed version
Date of publication: 15 December 2009
Number of pages: 301-304
ISBN: 978-2-85430-026-0
ISSN: 0300-953x
 
Electronic reference
Rhys Richards, « The Pirates At Tahiti in 1822: Two Unpublished Letters by Samuel Henry », Journal de
la Société des Océanistes [Online], 129 | juillet-décembre 2009, Online since 15 December 2009,
connection on 20 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/jso/5967 
© Tous droits réservés
The Pirates At Tahiti in 1822: Two Unpublished
Letters by Samuel Henry
by
Rhys RICHARDS *
In June 1822 at Tubuai, a tiny 40 ton brig
captured a 300 ton brig of war armed with
twenty cannons. The captured brig was formerly
part of Lord Cochrane’s squadron of patriots
fighting the Spanish for the independence of
Chile and Peru (see illustration). The losing cap-
tain, Henry Good, was long experienced in war
before he turned to piracy. The victorious cap-
tain, Samuel Henry, was only 22 years old,
totally inexperienced in war, and the son of Rev.
William Henry, an Irish  missionary at
Tahiti. SamuelHenry’s enormous act of courage
and heroism earned him no official recognition.
Indeed this titanic victory of David against
Goliath, of good against evil, was not even men-
tioned in the chronicle of the Tahitian Mission,
apparently because the writer, John Davies, was
so deeply engrossed in petty squabbles with
Samuel’s father (Newbury, 1961).
The events involved were well recorded by the
Belgian trader J. A. Moerenhout, though largely
it seems not from the perspective of Captain
Henry, but rather from that of the volatile Irish
first mate, Thomas Ebrill, who wrongly claimed
all the credit for himself. Two unpublished letters
in the State Archives of New South Wales now
redress the balance somewhat by showing that in
fact it was young Samuel Henry who led the
capture of the pirate brig, and that Ebrill was not
the leader.
In addition, up till now little has been available
to Pacific historians about the preceding cir-
cumstances that led to the presence of this pirate
ship at Tahiti and Tubuai as early as 1822. This
article now seeks to fill that gap briefly from
Spanish records, and to draw attention to the
two letters of explanation written by Samuel
Henry soon after the events.
In December 1818 the British lord, Thomas
Cochrane, becameAdmiral of theChileanNavy.
Late in 1819 Cochrane began a naval blockade
of Callao, the port of Lima, which was then the
Spanish capital of South America. Cochrane’s
fleet consisted of only seven vessels, all old, lea-
king and in poor repair (Thomas, 1978: 249). His
crews were very mixed with a few politically
motivated patriots, some Chilean Indians, but
predominantly a core of European mercenaries
intent upon seizing the fabled riches of the Spa-
nish gold and silver mines.
As the blockade of Lima dragged on for many
months, two vessels which had sustained dama-
ges were detached to raid Spanish settlements to
procure whatever food they could find. These
were the corvette Independencia with 44 guns
under CaptainWilkinson and theAraucanowith
28 guns underCaptainRobertW. Simpson. Both
captains were experienced in contraband trading
along the Pacific coasts. NowChile was in revolt,
the English captains acted as if they were priva-
teers, licensed by Chile to prey upon the Spanish
enemy wherever they chose, and to seize any
Spanish merchant ships trading along the coast.
In December 1821 Captain Simpson had
taken theAraucano toAcapulco seeking food for
the patriots attacking Lima, but theGovernor of
* mrhys@paradise.net.nz
Journal de la Société des Océanistes, 129, année 2009-2
Mexico declined to permit any trade, detained
Simpson for several days and then asked him to
leave. In February 1822, trying again, both Cap-
tain Wilkinson and Captain Simpson sailed
north, across the Equator to Baja California
where they knew there were several small towns
without any military presence. Captain Wilkin-
son seized a local merchant ship, and attacked
the southernmost town of San Jose del Cabo,
where his men stole everything they could inclu-
ding every item of any value in the church.
Captain Simpson took the Araucano further
up the Gulf of Mexico to the town of Loreto,
arriving on 17 February 1822. There his trading
began peacefully, but when he found Loreto
could not produce sufficient dried beef and flour,
he took the ship’s boat to visit Guyamas and
other small towns nearby to see what food they
might spare. During his absence, thirty of his
crew mutinied, sacked Loreto, and occupied the
looted church as their headquarters. Later on
local Mexicans drove them out fiercely, captu-
ring some. The remaining pirates retreated to
their ship, where the first officer joined the muti-
neers and sailed off to Peru and Tahiti (Davis,
1980).
After further altercations and desertions, and
unloading two boat’s crews of unwanted Chi-
leans and Indians on the coast of Peru, theArau-
cano reached Tahiti with barely enough crew to
navigate, and leaking badly. At Tahiti they found
many dissolute beachcombers ready to join a
pirate ship. Also there laying at anchor was a
replacement vessel, the small colonial brigQueen
Charlotte under Captain Samuel Henry. He was
born at Tahiti, was not only bilingual but also
bi-cultural, and was highly regarded by both the
Tahitians and themissionaries (though the latter
deplored his ‘‘immorality’’ in sexual matters).
Samuel was only 22 years old, but had already
travelled widely across the south Pacific. Samuel
had had some education in Sydney, including as
a mechanic and in navigation so that he could
take command of the mission’s trading brig.
Affable and well mannered, Samuel Henry was a
protégé not only of Samuel Marsden but also of
King Pomare I (Gunson, 1976: 36-45).
What followed when the pirates arrived at
Tahiti in June 1822 is well covered by Moeren-
hout:
«The captain of the Araucano, or at least the man
who called himself such, almost immediately after his
arrival, repaired to the small ship, where he said that he
was going to coast of New Zealand to fish for seals,
offered Captain Henry some flour in exchange for
several objects which he needed, and (a singular thing)
finally succeeded after several days in dispelling any
suspicion about whom he might be. It was only at the
last moment that the insubordination of his crew gave
rise to the thought that the pretended fisherman was a
pirate.» (Borden, 1993: 455)
He told Henry that he was next bound nor-
thwards to the Marquesas to get supplies before
sealing.
When Captain Henry took the Queen Char-
lotte out for Eimeo (Moorea) andTubuai, hewas
startled that the Araucano (alias Prudence) fol-
lowed, and tried to close with him near Eimeo.
Samuel Henry evaded them, but was even more
startled when he arrived at Tubuai only to find,
to his «great surprise and fear», that the Arau-
canowas anchored there already, as if waiting to
prey upon him. TheQueenCharlottewas only an
eighth the size of the pirate, was totally outgun-
ned and a sluggish sailor, and her crew of nine-
teen were greatly outnumbered. There certainly
seemed no chance of an escape. Captain Henry
wrote the following account:
«Shortly after I arrived, I was informed by an
Englishman who had been on board the Prudence
when I hove in sight that immediately on perceiving us,
all hands on board her left their work, and loaded their
guns with round and grape shot.
On the 22nd June, Captain Patterson came on board
and stated to me that there was a mutiny on board his
vessel, and requested me to go on board as a protec-
tion to him, whilst he could make enquiry into the
particulars, to which I acceded, taking withme Paihia,
a chief, and a party of natives. Went on board where
after some enquiries, Captain P. was obliged to relin-
quish the business not being able to find out the rin-
gleaders; and a quarrel then ensuing between the crew,
several words were made use of which appeared to me
very suspicious, and caused me to question Captain P.
closely. He appeared very much perplexed and alar-
med, and in a confusedmanner hinted that thingswere
not with him as they ought to be.
On 23rd my chief mate [Ebrill] who had been on
board the Prudence, came to me and stated that she
was sailing under a false name, and that in reality she
was a Patriot brig of war Arocano, formerly comman-
ded by Captain Simpson, that she was run away with
by Mr Patterson, who had been First Lieutenant on
board of her, while Captain Simpson was on shore at
Callao, with a great part of her crew, and that the
person who called himself Patterson and now com-
manded her, was also under a false name, his proper
name being Henry Good. He further stated to me that
it was in agitation to take theQueen Charlotte as soon
as she got outside the harbour, and put us on board the
vessel, she being in such a damaged and leaky state
that they would not remain in her themselves. This
plan was objected to by some of their own people as
we should in the event of being put on board of the
Prudence, then be enabled to take theQueen Charlotte
from them again. It was then agreed upon that they
302 SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES
should throw all the guns overboard after taking us,
and otherwise disable us in such a manner as should
put it out of our power to molest them afterwards.
This statement from my Chief Mate naturally cau-
sed considerable alarm, which was further augmented
whenMrClark, First Officer of thePrudence, came on
board the same day, and corroborated what my mate
had stated and further added that I ought to be very
much on my guard whilst in harbour. One of the crew
of the Prudence, formerly the cook on the Queen
Charlotte, also informedme of the plans that were laid
to take her.
It was my intention to have sailed in the morning
subsequent to this disclosure. But finding myself in
such a critical situation with every chance of being
pursued by the brig, fromwhomwe could not possibly
escape when out at sea as she had much superiority
over using sailing and mounted eighteen guns with a
large complement of men. I conceived it best under the
circumstances of the case to consult withmy crew, and
having stated the particulars to them, they agreed to
stand by me to a man, and endeavour to take the brig
while she lay at anchor about a mile distant. The crew
also stated that they had heard reports that alarmed
them very much, as the brig was so well manned, and
we were so few in number. It was finally agreed upon
that when everything was in readiness we should take
her.
Captain Patterson coming on board in the interim, I
confined him and two men who accompanied him.
Having in the meantime dispatched a boat for infor-
mation, who returned after leaving two of their num-
ber on board, with word that part of the crew were on
shore.
Upon this, I manned our [two] boats, and with
myself, my mate, seven Europeans and ten Ota-
heitians, put off for the brig about 7 pm. On coming
along side we boarded and took her without any lives
being lost on either side or any damage done. At 10
o’clock I returned to my own vessel, leaving my chief
mate in charge of the Prudence.» (Henry, Letter 1 July
1822)
According to Moerenhout, it was the new
mate Thomas Ebrill, a lively Irishman, who first
proposed that the best form of defence was a
pre-emptive strike to capture the pirate ship
whilst her crew were on shore and off guard
(Borden, 1993: 456). This may be true, but the
later reports by Henry make it absolutely clear
that it was Henry himself who led the attack,
supported by Ebrill. Henry is unlikely to have
told untruths to his father, particularly since they
would have been exposed by others on theQueen
Charlotte on their return home.
At Tahiti, the foreign residents and the Tahi-
tians alike were astonished that such a tiny ship
had captured the big, well armed, ship of war.
Captain Hunter of the Sydney brig Governor
Macquarie later reported that:
«An English whaler, the name of which is not
remembered by Captain Hunter, happening shortly
after to touch at the islands, the captain of the captu-
red brig with ten of his men, ran away in a boat and
obtained a passage on board, thus effecting their
escape, and satisfactorily proving their guilt of the
charge of piracy attributed to them. Many actions
subsequent to this capture, corroborated the state-
ments in evidence against them. To act with all that
prudence which should ever characterise British com-
manders in cases of such extreme importance, Captain
Henry called a Council of four captains of whalers
who had put in to refresh on their homeward bound
passages. By this assembly the piratical brig was decla-
red un-seaworthy; she therefore remains at Otaheite at
anchor, and is already near akin to a wreck.» (Sydney
Gazette 22 November 1822)
The members of the council of captains were
probably Captain Hunter of the Governor Mac-
quarie, Captain Walker of the Dragon, David
Clark of the Good Hope and William Carlett of
the John Bull. The Governor Macquarie was a
pork trader; while the others were whaleships.
The later British whaleship on which Captain
Good and ten of hismen left Tahiti was probably
the Charles of London, Captain Lock.
Rather curiously no further record has been
found of the pirate captain, whom Samuel
Henry calls Henry Good, alias Henry Patterson.
Nor is it known who else were among the pirate
crew, but no doubt some at least continued to live
in other Pacific islands as beachcombers, traders
and tyrants.
Moerenhout’s account continues:
«Unfortunately instead of leaving immediately with
his capture for Chile, where honours and awardsmight
await him, the noble victor, on the advice of the mis-
sionaries, left the brig at Tahiti waiting till it should be
reclaimed by the ChileanGovernment, who were writ-
ten to but never replied, whether for reason of the [
chaotic] state of the country, or whether the ship did
not seem to them worth the effort.» (Borden, 1993:
457)
SamuelHenry’s letter confirms themoremun-
dane reason, namely that the Araucano was
declared un-sea-worthy and left to rot. No doubt
the wreck proved a major source of iron and
brass for tool, weapons and othermetal items for
the local Tahitians whose previous reliance upon
stone and wood was fast diminishing.
«Some years afterwards the Tahitians destroyed and
appropriated the cannons, which are still on a small
island in the center of Papeete...» (Borden, 1993: 457)
Afterwards Captain Ebrill went to Chile
twice:
MISCELLANÉES : THE PIRATES AT TAHITI IN 1822 303
«he even saw Simpson, the first captain of the brig,
now commander of the Aquilles, but the Government
paid no attention to him, and no-one spoke to him of
his [sic¢their] fine action [...] Ebrill was not even than-
ked [...]» (Borden, 1993: 463, 257)
Meanwhile in Chile themoment had passed as
Lord Cochrane was no longer in command in
1823. So a leaky old ship requiring extensive
repairs far away from repair facilities, was no
great attraction. The Chileans too judged that
the Araucano was best left to rot at Tahiti.
Conclusion
The two unpublished letters by Samuel Henry
confirm the events and convey more of the
context of Tahiti in 1822. The disunity and
lawlessness among the various foreign visitors
against each other, were conspicuous and in no
way an encouragement for Tahitians to adopt
foreign codes and mores uncritically. These let-
ters also illustrate the disunity and dissent pre-
sent among the foreign residents living ashore.
SamuelHenrywas unlikely to havewritten to tell
his father untruths that might have been exposed
on his return to Tahiti. Henry was brave but
naive. Ebrill was a self-promoting opportunist
ready to claim credit that belonged to Henry
and, one suspects, Ebrill was not only a fast
talker, but also a liar. Even the two recorders
were biased: Moerenhout disliked the missiona-
ries and theHenry family somuch that he accep-
ted Ebrill’s biased reports. Davies was unwilling
to endorse the bravery that had occurred because
it was within the family of his fellow missionary,
William Henry, with whom he was engrossed in
petty squabbles. Only Captain Samuel Henry
emerges well. He certainly deserves more credit
and acclaim for his heroic David-and-Goliath
victory over the war-seasoned pirates of the
Araucano.
Paremata
September 2007
Acknowlegements
With thanks to Chris Maxworthy for locating
the Spanish records and to Marion Minson for
help with their translation. Also thanks to the
State Archives of New South Wales for permis-
sion to use their letters by Samuel Henry.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B A.R., 1993. Travels to the Islands of the Paci-
fic Ocean, English translation of J.A. Moerenhout,
Maryland.
C Lord Thomas, 1859. Narrative of Services
in the Liberation of Chile, Peru and Brazil, vol. I,
London.
D Estela, 1980. Corsarios chilenos en la Califor-
nia del sur, Revista (University of Baja California,
Mexico), vol. 1, pp 1-14.
G N., 1976. The Deviations of a Missionary
Family: The Henrys of Tahiti, inA.H&A.WReed,
Pacific Island Portraits, Auckland.
H S. P., ms. Letter to his father Rev W Henry:
from the brig Queen Charlotte 1 July 1822: New
South Wales State Archives, 4/1753, pp. 165a-165d
[Microfilm reel 6052].
—, ms. Report to the Colonial Secretary, N.S.W. from
the Ship Queen Charlotte in Sydney Cove 17 May
1823, New South Wales State Archives 4/1765,
pp. 118-121 [Microfilm reel 6065].
N Colin, 1961. The History of the Tahitian
Mission 1799-1830, written by John Davies, edited
by C.W. Newbury, Cambridge, Haklyut Society.
Sydney Gazette, 22 November 1822
T Donald, 1978. Cochrane: Britannia’s Last
Sea-King, New York, Viking Press.
304 SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES


The Pirates At Tahiti in 1822: Two Unpublished Letters by Samuel Henry

http://journals.openedition.org/jso/pdf/5967

The Pirates At Tahiti in 1822: Two Unpublished Letters by Samuel Henry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenEdition